Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the original defendant No.1, Anil Gangekar, against the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the appellate court in a suit for arrears of rent and eviction filed by the original plaintiffs, Jashrath Pardeshi and Kasturchand Pardeshi. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was a tenant in their shop premises and had failed to pay rent from 1st April 1995 to 31st March 1997. A notice dated 28th April 1997 was served on the defendant on 30th April 1997 demanding arrears of Rs. 14,400 and stating that if not paid within 15 days, the tenancy would be terminated. The defendant did not comply, and the suit was filed. The trial court decreed the suit for arrears and eviction. The appellate court confirmed the decree. The defendant then filed this revision. The main legal issue was whether the notice under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was valid. The court examined the notice and found that it was served on 30th April 1997 and demanded payment by 15th May 1997, which gave only 15 days including the date of service. The court held that the requirement of 15 clear days was not satisfied, and therefore the notice was invalid. Consequently, the eviction decree was set aside. The court also noted that the defendant had deposited the arrears during the pendency of the suit. The revision was allowed, and the suit for eviction was dismissed, but the decree for arrears of rent was upheld.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction for Arrears of Rent - Notice under Section 12(3)(a) - The Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, Section 12(3)(a) - The court considered whether the notice served by the landlord on the tenant demanding arrears of rent was valid. The court held that the notice must be served in the manner prescribed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and that the tenant must be given a clear 15 days' time to pay the arrears. In this case, the notice was served on 30th April 1997 demanding payment by 15th May 1997, which gave only 15 days including the date of service, and the court found that the notice was not in strict compliance with the requirement of 15 clear days. The court set aside the eviction order. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the notice demanding arrears of rent served under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was valid and in compliance with the requirements of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
Final Decision
The civil revision application is allowed. The judgment and decree of eviction passed by the appellate court is set aside. The suit for eviction is dismissed. The decree for arrears of rent is upheld.
Law Points
- Notice under Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents
- Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act
- 1947 must be served in the manner prescribed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
- 1882
- and strict compliance is required for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent
